Marillion was influenced by some bands, and Genesis was probably the most important influence. Camel's Andy Latimer said that Steve Rothery once mentioned Camel as an influence. So probably there are more influences than just Genesis.

Honestly, I don't know for sure if the 8/8 part is a rip-off from Genesis 9/8 part, but I've always felt that it was, and that they were trying to imitate Genesis and didn't have the musical knowledge to do it properly. I always found that 8/8 part extremely irritating, but maybe I was overreacting. It's probably that the Genesis influences were a bit too much for me, like that 8/8 part and Fish with his painted face in the early days.

But although the influences are obviously there, I do think that Marillion developed their own sound quite soon, already on the 1st album. They remained progressive, and were even becoming more innovating from the Brave days on. Quite an achievement, since they were professionals and had to make a living out of it.

Yes, Marillion (in the Fish-era) were influenced by 70s prog rock but not solely Genesis. Fish is a huge Yes fan (maybe even more so than Genesis) and elements of their music could be detected in what Marillion were doing. Also agree that Camel had an influence - but that's what all these bands were - influences.

My personal is view is that Marillion filled a void and kept the flame burning for prog throughout the appallingly bad 80s music scene. I think it's mainly people who were say teenagers and "grew up" with prog when it was in effect, born are maybe the harshest critics of early Marillion music.

Marillion have went from strength to strength over the years constantly releasing fresh, original & experimental music - not just staying within it's prog core. To still slate them as throwback Genesis clones is harsh & unfair.

Marillion kept prog alive in the 80's. Would it have been better if Marillion didn't exist in the 80's and all music was just pop sh*t? Marilion kept the prog flame alive.

If Marillion hadn't existed, we would always have had Pallas and Twelfth Night

Marillion were great back in the Fish era (and still are great) Grendel is a fantastic song, I don`t care if it sounds like something else it was material like Grendel that helped me get through the 80`s

Marillion are in a higher class of prog than both Pallas and Twelfth Night (thats my personal opinion anyway)

Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s." They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s. Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going. Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s. Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

Marillion kept prog in the public eye throughout the 80's and though, from what ive heard, IQ were nearly a match for them (though not quite) they appealed to more people than Pallas and Twelfth Night and probably helped those bands get fans as well.

And to those that say that Camal influenced Marillion, of course they did, Marillion had their drummer for about a month or two in 84, how could that have not influenced them.

Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s." They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s. Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going. Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s. Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

Suprisingly, in the main I agree with all of that. That they suplemented the superficial prog sound with such appealing melodies is what does it for me.

King Crimson was pretty good at churning out songs based on the same formula in the 80s - interlocking 16th note bass-guitar-and drums with looping. I'm not sure what's progressive about that, especially when you do it over and over. Personally, I think KC had too many great players and not enough songwriters in the 80s. That stuff is also too verse-chorus-verse for me. At least Marillion had some interesting song structures.

Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s." They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s. Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going. Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s. Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

I think this is a very correct assesment in retrospect> This point is valid nowadays when most prog rock fans are now aware that groups like Univers Zero and Art Zoyd, and other RIO acts actually kept the progressive music spirits alive or even existed , but the public was not aware of this (outside a few nutcases and there were fewer active prog fans in the 80's then there are today). As A belgian (although I was in a Canadian exile from the early 70's onwards) , I was not even aware of Univers Zero until 88 date of which I got back across the pond. So this tells you a bit how osbcure those progressive musos were.

To the public eye watching rock music evolution through commercial radios , there was only Marillion and consorts. I had to wait until the mid-90's to discover Japanese mid-80's neo-prog groups because they were completely absent from the public eye. In a way , bravo to Marillion (I loved their debut album, although I thought it too derivative) just for being present in the public eye.But is that enough to have kept the prog spirit alive? Or were Marillion simply not riding a nostalgic wave and filling a void that all essential prog bands of the golden era had left!

This is where honesty must come in consideration (beyond the feeling factors): Marillion came to fill a void (even if they were completely honest in doing their music , believing it and not thinking of a financial move) and consumers actually were happy with the acetate instead of nothing! So Marillion got such a following because there was nothing else in that "market niche" among other reasons. This is why I believe that they are way over-rated!

Without getting into bashing Marillion too much more than I already have, I would like to point out the problem of claiming that they "kept progressive going in the '80s." They didn't -- they kept elements of the '70s alive in the '80s. Real progressive music kept progressing -- King Crimson, for example, kept progressive going. Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, This Heat, Art Bears and an emerging Japanese progressive scene kept progressive alive in the '80s. Not Marillion or Pallas or Pendragon -- they were about paying homage to progressive's surface elements and not really making progressive music.

I think this is a very correct assesment in retrospect> This point is valid nowadays when most prog rock fans are now aware that groups like Univers Zero and Art Zoyd, and other RIO acts actually kept the progressive music spirits alive or even existed , but the public was not aware of this (outside a few nutcases and there were fewer active prog fans in the 80's then there are today). As A belgian (although I was in a Canadian exile from the early 70's onwards) , I was not even aware of Univers Zero until 88 date of which I got back across the pond. So this tells you a bit how osbcure those progressive musos were.

To the public eye watching rock music evolution through commercial radios , there was only Marillion and consorts. I had to wait until the mid-90's to discover Japanese mid-80's neo-prog groups because they were completely absent from the public eye. In a way , bravo to Marillion (I loved their debut album, although I thought it too derivative) just for being present in the public eye.But is that enough to have kept the prog spirit alive? Or were Marillion simply not riding a nostalgic wave and filling a void that all essential prog bands of the golden era had left!

This is where honesty must come in consideration (beyond the feeling factors): Marillion came to fill a void (even if they were completely honest in doing their music , believing it and not thinking of a financial move) and consumers actually were happy with the acetate instead of nothing! So Marillion got such a following because there was nothing else in that "market niche" among other reasons. This is why I believe that they are way over-rated!

Especially compared to Univers Zero and Von Zamla!!

I suppose age *is* a factor, although my experiences are different. I learned of the existence of progressive rock in the mid-1980s (I was too young in the '70s to remember its music as it was happening) -- a friend of mine who knew I was into Genesis had a couple of Marillion albums and said "you should hear these guys -- they sound like Genesis!" So I borrowed his cassettes and returned them the next day in disgust. "You're right," I said. "They do sound like Genesis." Maybe if I was older I would have been bitter enough towards the music industry and disillusioned enough by the 1980s and I would have liked those surface elements that Marillion possessed a lot more. But as much as I liked (and still like) much of the mainstream prog from the 1970s, I'm too young to have developed a nostalgia for it. I just hear the music as music -- and as music, Fish-era Marillion doesn't excite me very much.

But yeah -- I see your point about Marillion's "honesty" and of course I do admire Marillion's anti-corporate streak and their dedication to play whatever music they wanted (and to make money off it).

I was saying the GRENDEL section is in 8/8, not 9/8. Apocalypse is quite obviously in 9/8. Therefore, they DON'T have the same rhythm, only the notes from the bass line are the same. And Marillion does not get 99% of their ideas from Genesis, that's ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a blatant hyperbole. I'm tired of hearing all this sh*t about how Marillion are ripoffs of Genesis. Genesis were a big influence on Marillion. Yes. But who cares? Marillion made good music, so why does it matter? When almost every band was selling out to record companies, Marillion kept prog alive in the 80's. Would it have been better if Marillion didn't exist in the 80's and all music was just pop sh*t? Marilion kept the prog flame alive.

Genesis was a great band and Marillion was good too. We can leave it at that.

Hey, calm down a little. Maybe I exaggerated a little. Marillion probably stole 95% of their ideas from Genesis.

In all honesty I am not saying that Marillion is a bad band because they are far from it. The only thing I'm talking about is the obvious Genesis sound that they have tried to emulate. There's really no sense in arguing it, since it is well known. And I would have to go by saying that King Crimson kept the prog flame alive.

One likes to believe In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless Compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

Even Fish admitted that "Grendel" was very much inspired by "Apocalypse in 9/8".

So true. Even though I'm a devoted fan of the band Fish led until 1989, I'm not going to deny that most of that work performed and released was mostly based upon the Gabriel era "Genesis", giving Marillion a new foundation for improvement and experimentation.

If not entirely Xeroxed, "Grendel" is, let's say, an "excerpt" from "Apocalypse in 9/8". No question about it.

I would estimate that Marillion "stole" probably no more than 10% of their ideas from Genesis, if that.

The famous section in Grendel is quite obviously based on "Apocalypse in 9/8", no matter what the time signature - the point is that the two sections map onto each other in terms of telling the particular story. Marillion's musical treatment of it is quite different - and it is the only time they "steal" an idea directly.

There are other times where homage is paid - but the overall style, particularly of Fish-era Marillion, is so very different to 1970s Genesis that I'm surprised that anyone believes all the old guff about them being some kind of "tribute band". If you think that, you've obviously never heard PFM or IQ, or a shedload of other bands that are far closer in sound.

Let's be honest here - which Marillion songs sound like which Genesis songs?

I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4

Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4).

Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Most classical composers give a bpm at the beginning of the piece, like 112 (which does not keep conductors from choosing their own tempo for it ; to make things more complicated there also is a theory by a German musicologist that the classical composers actually counted a backward and forward swing of the metronome as one single beat, which means their music music is being played double as fast today as was their intention; she has recorded some pieces like the Waldstein sonata in their "real" tempo; listening to them in comparison to the fast versions is a strange experience. )

So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in.

I was taken aback many years ago when I bought a Genesis song book, and the time signature for Apocalypse in 9/8 was given as 9/4

Because if you count it out while listening to that part, it is in 9/4. Genesis must have made a mistake (but I will admit 9/8 sounds better than 9/4).

Whether a note is an 1/8 or a 1/4 note depends on the general tempo of a piece. Of two notes of the same length one can be an 1/8 note, because it is used in a piece that is a largo, while in another piece that is an allegro the same note is a 1/4. Most classical composers give a bpm at the beginning of the piece, like 112 (which does not keep conductors from choosing their own tempo for it ; to make things more complicated there also is a theory by a German musicologist that the classical composers actually counted a backward and forward swing of the metronome as one single beat, which means their music music is being played double as fast today as was their intention; she has recorded some pieces like the Waldstein sonata in their "real" tempo; listening to them in comparison to the fast versions is a strange experience. )

So to say the rhythm in "Apocalypse in 9/8" is actually 9/4 only makes sense if you know what tempo the piece of music is in.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum